Authorship, date, occasion, and purpose of Johannine writings

Introduction

The Johannine corpus comprises five books, such as Fourth Gospel, I, II, III John, and Apocalypse. A shared vocabulary, idiom, point of view, and worldview connect the gospel and epistles. In vocabulary, expression, and point of view, I John stands close to the gospel, while II and III John stand together. At the same time I John is closer to II John than to III John. In this paper, the major discussion is on various aspects of Johannine theology with particular emphasis on the Fourth Gospel, I, II, III John on issues concerning the Introduction and content of each Johannine writing.

A. Johannine Gospel

1. Authorship

As in the Gospel of Luke (1:1-4), the question of authorship is raised in the text of the Gospel of John itself, quite clearly in 21:24, probably in 19:35, and possibly even in 1:14. As Fourth Gospel is different from the other Gospels, it was accepted as a part of Christian Scripture only in the belief that an authoritative figure wrote it, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus, namely John, the son of Zebedee, whom tradition holds to be the author also of the three letters of John as well as the book of Revelation. Thus the Gospel’s authority has, from very early times, been related to the question of its authorship.

The Fourth Gospel is anonymous, like all the Gospels, and, in fact, much ancient literature. The title “According to John” is derived from the tradition that the Gospel was written by the apostle John, the son of Zebedee. This tradition has been challenged for the following reasons: (1) The evidence of the earliest sources and church fathers (external evidence) is deemed ambiguous, inadequate, wrong, legendary, or polemical. (2) Those statements within the Gospel which might allude to its authorship (internal evidence) are also ambiguous and perhaps even point away from writing by one of the Twelve. (3) The content of the Gospel suggests that it was not written by an eyewitness or by one of the twelve disciples of Jesus.

When one examines the Fourth Gospel itself, however, it becomes apparent that although the question of authorship is raised, and at least a close relationship to an eyewitness is claimed, the name of that author or eyewitness is never given. We may conclude that he is John, but that is because of the strength of the synoptic, not Johannine, tradition. By process of elimination (not Peter, not James), one arrives at John as the most likely source of this Gospel. John, the son of Zebedee, does indeed play a prominent role in the synoptic Gospels, as well as in the early chapters of Acts, but he is never named in John (cf. however, John 21:2, where the sons of Zebedee are mentioned without being named). Of course, the Beloved Disciple appears at crucial points in the Fourth Gospel and is called as the authorizing witness, if not the author, in 21:24. Yet if we assume that he is John that again is because of the strength of the synoptic, and church, tradition. He is never named as such in the Fourth Gospel.

Scholars sometimes ask whether the tradition of authorship by John, the son of Zebedee, is a case of mistaken identity. The fourth-century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, quotes an earlier Christian author, Papias, to the effect that there was another John, John the Elder, who had known and heard Jesus. (The author of 2 and 3 John identifies himself as “the Elder.”) The graves of two Johns were known to exist at Ephesus. Was the Elder John (or some other Jerusalem disciple) the Beloved Disciple and the author or authority of the Johannine witness and tradition? More than one modern scholar has embraced this intriguing possibility, but it is, at best, a reasonable conjecture based on bits and pieces of evidence.

2. Date

The gospel has been dated as early as 40 and as late as 110 C.E. But the latest possible date has been fixed by the discovery in Egypt of the Rylands Papyrus 457 (P52), which contains 18:31–33, 37–38. This ms is usually dated between 125 and 150. Other textual finds make it undeniable that the gospel circulated in Egypt in numerous copies in the middle and last half of the second century. No one, therefore, is inclined to propose a date later than 100–10. The earliest date for the gospel hinges upon the question of whether or not it presupposes the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Most agree that it does. The reasons for positing a post-70 date include the view of the Temple implicit in 2:13–22. Most would argue that the passage attempts to present Christ as the replacement of the Temple that has been destroyed.

The relationship between John and the Synoptics has significance for the dating of the Fourth Gospel. If it is supposed that the fourth evangelist employed the Synoptics in the composition of the gospel, it then becomes necessary to date the Gospel of John after the writing of the Synoptics (i.e., after 85). Unfortunately, the issue of the fourth evangelist’s knowledge and use of the Synoptics is unsettled at present. However, a slim majority of scholars still maintain that there is not sufficient evidence in the gospel to hold that the evangelist knew or used any one of the Synoptics. If such was the case, the gospel could have been composed before or contemporaneously with the composition of the Synoptics.

Of highest importance to the dating of the gospel is the speculation as to what date is suggested by the setting proposed for the document. However, those who affirm that the context of the gospel was the experience of the expulsion from the synagogue cannot agree on a date when such a situation might have existed, for there is no agreement as to what caused the expelling of the Christians. Those who relate the expulsion to a formal effort on the part of Judaism to purge itself of Christian believers link the composition of the gospel with a date soon after the Council of Jamnia, which is supposed to have promulgated such an action. Hence, these scholars would date John after 90. Those inclined to see the expulsion more in terms of an informal action on the part of a local synagogue are free to propose an earlier date.

Given all these considerations, most often the gospel is assigned a date of 90–95, which continues the inclination of previous decades of scholarship to conclude that John is the last of the four gospels to be written. There are others, however, who argue that the date might well have been as early as 80–85.

3. Destination

The fourth Gospel itself specifies no destination. Inferences are primarily controlled by conclusions drawn in the areas of authorship and purpose. If John, the son of Zebedee, wrote this book while residing in Ephesus, then it might be inferred that he prepared the book for readers in this general part of the empire.

4. Purpose

Given that the Gospel was shaped over a lengthy period, probably coming to its canonical form only around 85-90CE, it is likely that one should talk of purposes rather than a single purpose.

The earliest purpose was to persuade Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, and it did this using the narratives of the signs of Jesus. Then, in the debate with the synagogue, which opposed Moses to Jesus, the Gospel sought to show that eternal life came through Jesus, not through Moses.

The Gospel presents a statement of its purpose in 20:31. Some have interpreted this statement to mean that the Gospel is an evangelistic document, designed to win converts, possibly from Diaspora Judaism. But the sharpness of the polemic against unbelieving Jews in the Gospel counts against this hypothesis. Moreover, the statement that the Gospel is written in order “that you may believe” can also be rendered, “that you may continue to believe,” and much of the Gospel seems designed to encourage believers to persist in faith.

The Gospel intends to present Jesus to second and subsequent generations of believers, those who did not “see signs” but have the Gospel’s written account of them (20:30-31: “these are written”). By making clear who Jesus is and the salvation that he offers, the Gospel intends to encourage and strengthen believers in their faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God.

5. Provenance

The Gospel was known in Gnostic circles by no later than CE 130. Although it is still possible that John was written in or near Ephesus near the end of the first century, it also could have been written somewhere in Palestine, since the Hellenistic flavor found in the Gospel has also been found in some of the Essene writings from Qumran. Antioch of Syria was suggested as an alternative location for its writing by the early fourth-century church father Ephraem the Syrian, who in the Armenian version of his commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron claimed that “John [presumably the apostle] wrote that [Gospel] in Greek at Antioch, for he remained in the country until the time of Trajan [ca.112].” It has also been asserted that it was written in Alexandria, because of the heavy reliance on it by the Gnostics of Alexandria in the second century and because of the commentary on John by Heracleon of Alexandria. For the most part, however, by the third century most early Christian writers attributed the fourth Gospel to John The apostle, who wrote it in or near Ephesus.

6. Structure, Genre, and Style

The Fourth Gospel falls into two major parts, preceded by an introduction and followed by an epilogue. The first part (chaps. 2–12), the public ministry, is variously called the Book of Signs because the account seems to center on Jesus’ deeds or the Revelation of the Glory before the World. The second part (chaps. 13-20) is the Book of the Passion or the Revelation of the Glory before the Community. The introduction (chap. 1), consisting of the prologue (1:1-18) and the several episodes of the calling of the disciples (1:19-51), is integral to the Gospel. However, some commentators have suggested that the prologue may have been added after the Gospel was written, rather than having been composed first. The epilogue (chap. 21) is pretty clearly a later addition to the Gospel, although no existing manuscript omits it.

Although the presentation of Jesus in John differs from the Synoptics much more than they differ among themselves, the Gospels, taken together, display a notable general similarity and distinctiveness. Interpreters have, however, wrestled with the question of their literary genre or form. Are the Gospels to be placed in the genre of ancient lives (bioi), or are they sufficiently distinctive to constitute a separate genre? Early in this century, and with the rise of form criticism, the latter view became dominant, typified in the influential article of K. L. Schmidt on the place of the Gospels in the general history of literature. Schmidt argued that the Gospels were not literature at all properly speaking. Their authors were not literary personalities.

When they were composed, the Gospels were not called by that name. Ancient manuscripts had the title “the Gospel” at the head of all four, and then “According to Matthew,” and so forth. “The Gospel” obviously meant “the good news,” that is, the Christian message, and was not the designation of a literary genre. Indeed, at mid-second century Justin Martyr characteristically refers to the synoptic Gospels as the “memoirs” of the apostles; only three times does he call them Gospels. Only in the latter part of the second century did the traditional usage, “Gospels,” become common. Most contemporaries probably would have read the Gospels thinking that they were reading ancient lives, despite their many distinctive features. Yet the form-critical movement, which Schmidt represents, rightly emphasized the importance of the Gospels’ distinctively religious cultic function, which, to a considerable extent, determined their shape and content.

The Gospel of John is written in an elevated but simple koine (common or popular) Greek, with the smallest vocabulary of any canonical Gospel. Yet its style is impressive. John is somewhat longer than the Gospel of Mark but shorter than either Matthew or Luke. In vocabulary and style, it manifests a strong relationship with the three Epistles or Letters of John, especially I John. The Jesus of John sounds less like the Jesus of the synoptic tradition than like the author(s) of these letters. The Greek of this Gospel has sometimes been described as semitizing, that is, similar to a Semitic language, especially Hebrew, the language of scripture, or Aramaic, the spoken language of Jesus. Yet the characteristic features of John’s style can also be found in common Greek letters and similar documents dating from the same period.

Because of the elevated style, the philosophical tone of parts like the prologue, the profound differences from the synoptic Gospels, and especially the fact that Jesus is set apart from “the Jews” as if he were not Jewish, John was once thought the most Hellenistic or Greek of the Gospels. More recent discoveries have, however, shown that John’s contacts and involvement with Judaism are profound and essential to its full and proper understanding.

7. Theology

The Gospel of John is primarily a theological narrative about the mission of Jesus that focuses intently on the identity and significance of Jesus.

a. Christology

One vital aspect of the Gospel of John is its distinctive Christology. Although John shares several relevant titles with the other Gospels in distinctively Johannine ways, the titles are occasionally used in the Gospel. Besides, there are additional images and designations for Jesus peculiar to John.

1). Word/Logos.

The only other place in the NT that the title “Word (logos) of God” appears is in Revelation 19:13, But the term was also used in Greek philosophical thought. For Heraclitus (6th century BCE), the Logos was the eternal principle of order in the universe. The Stoics saw the “word” as the mind of God, the principle of reason within the universe, controlling and directing all things. But the idea of God’s word (or God’s speaking) has a Jewish context as well. God created the world by speaking it into existence (Gen 1; Ps 33:6). In the prophetic books, “the word of the Lord” is nearly personified as it is described as coming to a particular prophet (Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1). The word heals (Ps 107:20), obedience to it brings life (Deut 32:46-47), and it is a light that guides people to God (Ps 119:105,130).

The Johannine description of the Word (logos) has affinities with the Jewish concept of Wisdom. In Proverbs 8, especially verses 22-31, Wisdom is said to have existed in the beginning, before the creation of the world; it was God’s agent in creation; it brings life and light to those who accept it, and most human beings rejected it. According to Sirach 24:8, Wisdom made its dwelling among human beings. The verb for “made its dwelling” is a cognate of the term used of the Logos’ “dwelling” (skēnoō) in John 1:14. The actual term “word,” logos, is that found in the OT prophets in the Greek OT (LXX). Still, the characterization of that logos in John has remarkable correspondences to the biblical and apocryphal descriptions of wisdom. In John, the Logos is the agent of creation (1:3), and the incarnate Logos is the agent of God’s judgment. Also, in John’s Gospel, the Logos is confessed as Lord and God, a prestigious designation for Jesus in Johannine theology.

Thus, John would certainly seem to owe many of the incidental features of his doctrine of the Logos to the ideas of Word and Wisdom and divine Reason in Hellenistic Judaism. But his conclusion, that the Logos became flesh is both wholly original and distinctively Christian. John is expressing, with a new and superior terminology, the insight of Paul and Hebrews that the pre-existent divine Wisdom revealed itself in and as the man Jesus of Nazareth.

2). God.

The opening words of the Gospel makes a distinction between the Word and God, and that the Word was God (1:1-2). The designation of Jesus as “God” occurs once more, in John 20:28, when the risen Jesus is confessed as “Lord and God.” Elsewhere, Jesus is accused of “making himself equal to God” (5:18) and “making himself God” (10:33). While the pair of titles (“Lord and God”) in 20:28 may reflect the fact that the emperor Domitian (A.D. 81-96) sought to have himself addressed as “Lord and God,” the full designation of the Word as “God” (in 1:1) requires another explanation. What the Gospel means in introducing the Word as “God” must be understood in light of the strict monotheism of Judaism that became the heritage of Christianity as well.

3). The “I am” Sayings

Unique to the Gospel of John is the “I am” sayings. In those “I am” statements with a predicate (bread of life, the light of the world, vine), Jesus speaks of the salvation that he offers to human beings. The “I am” sayings without predicate (8:24, 28, 58) are more challenging to interpret. In the OT, “I am” sayings are found in contexts of God’s revelation to Israel. “I am” also appears, apparently, as the name of God (“I am who I am”). But the LXX translation of this crucial passage in Exodus 3:14 is “I am the one who is” (egō eimi ho ōn), thus underscoring that the essence of God’s being or nature is unique, divine existence: God is.

There has been some debate over whether these passages in John are formulae of identification or revelation. The former seems more natural, but the latter is possible, and one could translate: ‘the bread of life, it is I’ as some scholars suggest. In that case, the Evangelist would be saying that it is Jesus who fulfills expectation, and not some other claimant. On the other hand, it may be wrong to press the distinction, and perhaps we should simply conclude that these formulae assert that Jesus is the Deliverer, and the Deliverer is Jesus.

4). Son of God.

While the ‘Son of God’ title in Judaism was not specifically a title for the Messiah, it did have messianic implications. In Hebrew thought there were various metaphors employed to express the relationship between God and Israel. Possibly the most significant figure of a relationship was Father-son (Ex. 4:22-23; Hosea 11:1; Jer. 31:9, 201. Israel was God’s son because He created a people for Himself and chose them for a specific mission. The king of Israel was also God’s son. The king received this designation because, in his person, he represented the nation. He sustained a relationship with God that the people themselves did not share. As a son of God and as the anointed one of God, the king was the epitome of the nation but not divine.

In the Gospel and Epistles of John, Jesus is called the “Son of God” (huios), while Christians are called “children of God” (tekna) who are “born of God.” This distinction highlights the unique relationship of Jesus to the Father, which is further underscored by the Gospel’s designation of Jesus as “the only Son” or “the unique Son” (monogenēs) God. It is evident that the phrase Son of God in 20: 31 is epexegetic. It is a clarification of the meaning of the Messiah. It preserves the Jewish idea of Son of God by showing that Jesus had a peculiar relationship to God just as the king of old. However, the Evangelist had already restricted the title to Jesus by the use of monogenes. Jesus was the only Son of God (1: 14, 18, 3: 16, 18).

Intermingled in the Fourth Gospel with the affirmation that Jesus was the Son of God are also the claims that he was the Son of Man. At times the author just refers to Jesus or has Jesus referring to himself as the Son. It is not at all clear in these instances whether the Son means Son of God or Son of Man. It might just be that the Evangelist did not make any differentiation between the two titles and understood that what applied to one applied to the other. Throughout the Gospel there is only one specific claim from the words of Jesus that he was the Son of God (10: 36) and that he was the Son of Man (19:37). Most of the other references are objective statements about himself, which indeed leaves no doubt that he accepted these titles.

The mere use of the title, the Son of God, or just the Son did not arouse the Jews in this Gospel to accuse Jesus of blasphemy because the phrase did not express the deity of a person explicitly. What did trouble them were the claims made by Jesus that he was equal to the Father. As long as the category Son of God indicated subordination to the Father, then, in a sense, the possibility of being a son of God was open to all. Jesus himself recognized that the Jews forfeited their relationship to God as Father by their sin and rejection of the truth (8: 27·55).

On three occasions in the Fourth Gospel, the Jews tried to kill Jesus because he considered himself equal to God (5: 17-18; 8:58-59; 10:30-31). The saying of Jesus went beyond the bounds of the sonship of obedience in a moral and ethical relationship and moved into a metaphysical sphere. When the Jews accused Jesus of violating the sabbath, he justified his action by saying, “My Father is working until now, and I am working” (5: 17). In addition to these direct statements of Jesus, which indicate sonship is deity rather than a unique human relationship to God, we observe that there are other allusions throughout the Gospel to the same, either in addresses of Jesus or comments by the author (l: 18; 3:34,36; 5:21-23; 6:46; 14:9, 10; 14:23; 17:24).

5). Messiah.

In the NT, John alone presents the transliterated form of the Hebrew or Aramaic term messias (1:41; 4:25); “Christ” (christos) is used 17 times, and the compound “Jesus Christ” occurs twice (1:17; 17:3). Whether or not Jesus is the Messiah becomes a topic of conversation and controversy far more often than in the Synoptics. The Baptist denies that he is the Messiah (1:20; 3:28); Jesus’ disciples acclaim him as Messiah quite early in the narrative (1:41); both the Samaritans (4:29) and Jews (7:25-31, 40-43, 52; 12:49) discuss Messiahship; and the confession of Jesus as Messiah is met with expulsion from the synagogue (9:22; cf. 16:2). Yet, like the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus does not announce himself to be the Messiah, nor answer plainly when asked whether he is the Christ (10:24). There is a secret to Jesus’ Messiahship in John, and that secret is revealed to the eyes of faith. John’s use of the term Messiah still maintains its meaning of the one anointed by God as vice-regent in the messianic kingdom, and John emphasizes Jesus’ kingly role (6:14-15; 18:33-37). In some places, it appears that Messiah is virtually equivalent to “Son of God” (20:31), emphasizing again the unique relationship to God that this appointed agent has.

6). Son of Man.

Few problems have vexed scholars as great as that of the title or phrase “Son of man” in the Gospels. The central features of John’s portrait of Jesus as “Son of Man” may be sketched. (1) The future apocalyptic world-judge of the Synoptic Gospels fades into the background, and Jesus, the Son of Man, becomes the one to execute judgment in his earthly ministry (3: 18f; 5:24f.). (2) Son of man is mainly linked with death, mostly when it is described as Jesus being “lifted up” from the earth. (3) The Son of man reveals God by serving as the mediator between earth and heaven (1:51; 3:13; 6:27, 62). These three categories should not be kept distinct from each other, however, but are closely related. Jesus’ glorification and death are nearly synonymous in John, for Jesus’ death are at the same time his lifting up to the Father in glory (Jn. 3:14). Moreover, when he is lifted up, his work is brought to its climactic fulfillment as the mediator between God and all humankind. Furthermore, the Son of Man in this gospel “is God, descending into the human realm, and there manifesting his glory.” The Evangelist developed the Son of Man sayings into a descent (katabasis) and ascent (anabasis) Christology (3: 13; 6:62).

7). Prophet.

The Gospel speaks of Jesus as “prophet,” A prophet was a person who spoke with divine authority and by divine inspiration. When Jesus heals the man born blind, the man acknowledges him to be “a prophet” (9:17), thus confessing him to be “from God” (9:16). Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand leads people to exclaim, “Surely this is the prophet who is to come into the world” (6:14), and some wonder whether he is “the Prophet” (7:40). These acclamations honor Jesus not just as one among the prophets, but as the Prophet who would appear in the end time, thus fulfilling the promise of Moses to the people in Deuteronomy 18:15, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me.” There is no evidence that normative Judaism in the first century CE, looked forward to a new prophet like Moses who would arise at the end of the present age to usher in a period of prosperity and peace similar to the function of the Messiah. However, the expectation of a prophet-like-Moses was known among the Samaritans (cf. Jn. 4:19) and the community at Qumran. Thus the confession of Jesus as a prophet acknowledges Jesus’ divine commissioning and authoritative message. Still, the confession of Jesus as the Prophet points to his unique role as the final Prophet of God. Here again, Jesus is portrayed as the chief and unique agent of God.

b. Cross

Soteriology is inseparable from Christology in the Fourth Gospel, as Christ is viewed as the revealer of the Father, which constitutes the salvific occasion for humanity. Revelation comprises the vital soteriological theme, and the disclosure is in itself saving (14:7). But the cross and resurrection are central of the revelation. Through a variety of subjects, the evangelist describes the meaning of Jesus’ death.

1). Enthronement.

The cross is viewed in the Fourth Gospel as the enthronement of Jesus as King, and it is evident in several ways. Firstly, the expression, “lifted up” (hypsoō) is used four times to refer to the crucifixion (3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34). These passages have been said to function as the three passion predictions of the synoptic tradition (Mark 8:31; 9:12; 10:33–34). The Greek verb was used of both the lifting up of one on a cross and the enthronement of a royal figure. With this verb, the evangelist expresses the mystery of the cross-it is both a shameful death and also the act by which Christ assumes his rightful position as King of humanity. Secondly, the enthronement motif is expressed in the ironic title placed on the cross by Pilate, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews (19:19), as well as by the discussion of kingship in the trial of Jesus before Pilate. It is in that discussion that the essential question emerges—is it Caesar or Christ who is the authentic King (18:33; 19:15)? There the true nature of Christ’s kingship is articulated (18:36). Third, it is the kingly posture of Jesus throughout the trial and crucifixion, which underlines the meaning of the cross as an enthronement. Jesus is by no means a victim throughout this ordeal but is always in control of the situation. He allows himself to be arrested (18:1–11) and can change the course of events should he choose to do so (19:11). His death is a deliberate act in which he hands over his spirit (19:30). He is buried in a virgin tomb, as a king would be buried (19:41).

It is in the cross the true identity of Jesus is declared, as he is elevated to his status as the rightful ruler of creation.

2). Glorification and Ascension.

The fourth evangelist understands the cross as a “glorification” of Jesus, the act by which divine presence is poured out upon Jesus. Glory (doxa) in Johannine theology seems to mean the revelation of God’s presence. In Christ, the divine reality is perceived through the eyes of faith (1:14; 2:11). Glorification, then, is the manifestation of that divine presence.

A prominent distinctive of the Fourth Gospel’s perspective on the death of Jesus is that the time of glorification is moved forward from the resurrection, where it occurs in the Synoptics, to the cross itself (12:23–24). This is the supreme moment of the glorification of Jesus. The lifting up on the cross is his exaltation. The crucifixion is the goal of the incarnation. The cross thus serves as a critical revelation of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is made to speak of the cross as his glorification (12:23; 17:1, 5). The evangelist uses the expression almost as a synonym for crucifixion (7:39; 12:16). The glorification of Christ is the glorification of God (13:31–32; 17:1).

Consequently, as the cross reveals the true identity of Son, it tells the presence and character of the Father. It is in the cross that God makes the divine presence known to the world. It can be said that the cross is salvific in that the cross is the revelation of God.

Closely aligned with the theme of glorification is that of ascension. The cross is viewed as part of the process by which Jesus returns to his divine origin. It is closely tied to the resurrection as a part of the ascending process since Jesus ascends to his Father in the act of rising from the dead after having laid down his life (20:17). The cross and the resurrection are how Jesus departs (“goes away” hypagō, 16:7). It is the completion of the sojourn of the revealer of God in this human realm (19:30).

The evangelist saw the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension as a single event in which time distinctions were transcended. As a result, the cross is not viewed as the tragedy overcome in the resurrection, as much as it is taken to be the first stage of a revelatory occurrence. The cross cannot be separated from the resurrection or the resurrection from the cross. Both are dimensions of the manifestation of the divine presence in connection with the person and ministry of Jesus.

Again, the ascension-return theme is understood as the revelation of God, and disclosure is understood to have a salvific effect.

3). The Supreme Act of Divine Love

Jesus interprets his death as the supreme act of love (15:13), an act that transforms the relationship of the believers to him from that of servants to friends. The cross, therefore, emerges as the model of divine love. Recognizing the cross as the revelation of God’s love for humanity sheds light upon five other significant passages.

Firstly, the cross is spoken of as the divine “drawing” (helkō) of humans to God (12:32). If the cross is the supreme act of divine love, the drawing power is the power of love. Secondly, the cross is presented in the parabolic form in 12:24. It is a death that yields results, as the planting of seed produces growth. The death of Jesus is understood as the sprouting of divine love—the revelation of that love which saves humans from their predicament. Thirdly, the cross is presented in an acted parable in the foot washing. The washing of the disciples’ feet is interpreted as a cleansing. The cleansing is washing in love mentioned in 3:16. Fourthly, in 11:50, the cross is declared to be the death of one person on behalf of the whole people. It is an act of self-giving love for the sake of the results it yields for others.

Finally, the cross creates a new family of God (19:26–27). This passage is to be seen as the closing of the theme introduced in 1:12. By the cross, the believers, represented by the beloved disciple, are brought into Jesus’ family, represented by the mother of Jesus. It is an expression of love that draws humans together into a new family grouping (cf. 11:52). Again, the meaning of the cross is found in its revelatory character. As it reveals the love of God for humans, it saves them from life in alienated lovelessness.

c. Dualism.

The Gospel of John is full of dualisms. Its main burden is dualistic, as reflected in the prologue: the eternal has entered the temporal; the supra historical has entered history; the heavenly has become the earthly; the spiritual has become the material, and the dualism is presented in the gospel with a series of symbolic polarities: Light and darkness (1:5), above and below (8:23), life and death (3:36), truth and falsehood or lie (8:44–45), heaven and earth (3:31), God and the devil (8:42–44). In every case, Christ is the representative of the positive pole, and believers are aligned with that pole. Opponents are, on the other hand, affiliated with the negative pole—that which opposes God, Christ, and the believer.

Two other dualistic symbols dominate the gospel. The first is the derogatory use of the word “world” (kosmos). In some cases, the world is used in a neutral sense to describe the realm of human life and activity (1:9; 16:21). But more often, the word seems to stand for the realm of evil set over against the revelation. The world hates the believer but embraces the unbeliever (7:7; 15:18). Christ and the believers are not of the world, while unbelievers are (8:23; 15:19; 17:14). The “ruler” of the world is the evil figure (12:31; 14:30). The world cannot receive the Spirit (14:17) and rejoices in Jesus’ suffering (16:20). The world produces tribulation for believers (16:33).

The “world” is sometimes used to represent one of the negative poles of the Johannine dualism as a cipher for that which is opposed to Christ and the revelation.

What is the reason for this dualistic scheme? It is one of the features of Johannine theology best understood in terms of the setting of the gospel. The Johannine community expelled from the synagogue has a sense of themselves as an enclave of believers in a hostile world. The mentality has been described as “sectarian,” meaning that they conceived of themselves as the possessors of the truth while all those around them live in error. Because of this dualistic social reality, the community imposed such a dualistic scheme upon the cosmos. They experienced their fellowship as “light” over against the “darkness” of unbelief, and hence understood the whole of reality in this manner. The pejorative use of the term “the world” reflects their sense that the majority in their environment was hostile to them and their beliefs. Because their primary opponents were the Jews of the synagogue, the major opponents of Jesus are spoken of as “the Jews.” It is clear that the evangelist had no interest in condemning the Jewish people as a whole and that the pejorative use of “the Jews” only reflects the concrete situation in which the community lived.

d. Eschatology.

Tension is encountered in the Fourth Gospel when one attempts an analysis of what the Evangelist teaches concerning the acts of God at the end time. The fourth Evangelist claims that the ultimate gifts of God, usually associated with the end times of history, are already accessible to the believer in Christ. This claim is made, however, without compromising the future dimension of those gifts. Thus two types of eschatological thought are in the Fourth Gospel. The first is the classical futuristic eschatology in which the events of the end times are spoken of as standing out in a future time—resurrection (6:39–40, 54), judgment (12:48), and eternal life (12:25). The promised return of Jesus is mentioned in 14:3, 18, 28, and the intervening time is conceived as a period of tribulation (chaps. 15 and 16) in typical eschatological fashion. In John, there is no proper eschatological discourse devoted to the future, analogous to that of the Synoptics. There is, nevertheless, teaching about the future. A future resurrection of the righteous and the wicked is clearly shown in 5:28–29 (“the hour is coming”), and there are a few other allusions to the future (13:36; 14:3, 27; 16:2, 16, 22–26; 17:24; 21:22–23). But a presently realized eschatology stands alongside the futuristic one. Resurrection is conceived as the experience of coming to faith in Jesus (5:24) and is a present reality in Christ (11:25–26). Judgment is a current reality for believers (3:18), and along with it, eternal life is already possession of—and not merely a promise to—the believers (5:24). Thus, the Evangelist’s emphasis is on the realized dimensions of eschatology and on the richness of what is currently available to the believer.

B. I John

This epistle does not conform to the general characteristics of contemporary letters. It has no introductory material, no author’s greeting, no thanksgiving, and no concluding salutations. It mentions no-one’s name throughout. It reads more like a homily than an epistle. It is not difficult to imagine a Christian congregation listening to its delivery with its frequent personal exhortations. It is only occasionally that words occur, which reminds that this is not an address but a letter (2:1, 26).

1. Authorship

I John and the Epistle to the Hebrews are the only New Testament epistles in which no author’s name is given. Still, in I John, unlike Hebrews, the introduction is intended to tell us something about the author. He is writing about what he (or rather ’we’) had heard, seen, looked at, and touched (I Jn. 1:1). Because of the relationship that exists between I John and II John, and then between II John and III John, it is probable that all three letters derive from the same author. Given the reference in the early church to an “Elder” named “John,” it seems natural to identify this particular John as the author of II John and III John, although this still can be only conjecture. The unknowns are too plentiful, and the evidence too questionable for any confidence. Always, it seems that a slight probability favors all three letters, together with the Fourth Gospel, as having been written by the Apostle John.

2. Date

If I John and Fourth Gospel come from the same author, then I John would not have been written very long after Fourth Gospel. Since I John is known as early as the second quarter of the second century, I John cannot have been written later than toward the end of the first quarter of the second century. Between 90 and 110 would, therefore, be the most probable time for the origin of I John. As to the place of origin, we know nothing. If the Fourth Gospel comes from Syria, we could conjecture the same provenance for I John.

3. The Life setting and Purpose of the Epistle

A specific problem seems to have called forth the document. Some people have left the Johannine community (2:19), and not over a minor issue. They are reprimanded in harsh language as “antichrists,” liars who denied that Jesus is the Christ (2:18, 22). “This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son” (2:22). The author very indicates this lie explicitly as the reason or at least one of the main reasons, he writes. “I write this to you about those who would deceive you” (2:26). They are further described as “false prophets” (4:1) who follow “the spirit of antichrist” (4:3) rather than the Spirit of God, and who confess that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (4:2). They are “of the world,” whereas “we are of God” (4:5–6). The reality of antichrists and false prophets points to the nearness of eschatological fulfillment.

The concern over the denial that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh indicates that those who had left the community were gnostic dualists whose arguments continued to have influence. A major, if not the primary, a concern of the author is to counter this incipient Gnosticism. Jesus Christ came in the flesh (4:2; cf. 2 John 7); he “came by water and blood”—that is, by baptism and the cross (5:6). Some have seen a connection between the gnostic beliefs of those who left the community and the early gnostic Cerinthus, who lived in Asia Minor. According to Irenaeus, the Gospel of John was written to counteract the teaching of Cerinthus, who was a precursor of the Gnostics; he perhaps also is the target of the correctives offered in 1 John.

The author has stated his purpose in such terms as to leave in no doubt his immediate intention. In 1:3 f., he writes, ‘We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us … We write this to make our joy complete.’ In 5:13, he is even more specific, ‘I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.’ A comparison of this latter statement with John 20:31 shows a close connection in the purpose for which both writings were written, that is, to instruct in right knowledge those who already believe. And the knowledge to be imparted is a fellowship and a possession (‘eternal life’).

If we engage in a mirror reading of 1 John, the strong emphasis on love in the epistle may point to a lack of love among the readers. Similarly, the argument against worldliness (2:15–17) may point to the sinful inclinations of those addressed.

4. Recipient

The most satisfactory explanation is that 1 John was written to a group of people, possibly in more than one Asiatic community, with whom the author was personally acquainted and who were threatened with the same infiltration of false teaching. The following reasons have led to the widely-held view that Asia was the destination of this epistle and of 2 and 3 John: the external tradition associates the gospel with John at Ephesus; the association of the Johannine literature with the Apocalypse would also suggest Asia Minor; the gnosticizing teaching reflected in these epistles is strongly connected with this area. Moreover, the earlier known use of 1 John comes from the same area (i.e., in Polycarp’s epistle).

C. II, III John

1. Authorship

2 John and 3 John may be said to be partially anonymous. That is, they were written by “the Elder” (or “the presbyter”), but precisely who this Elder was remained unclear. It is not even certain how one should understand the word “elder” here since the term can refer to the advanced age of a person or a position of authority in the church distinct from the question of age. Papias seems to have thought of “elders” as the successors to the Apostles, as representing the second generation of transmitters of tradition.

Possibilities remain such as that 2 John and 3 John are by the Elder, and the Fourth Gospel and 1 John are by the Apostle, or perhaps only John’s Gospel is by the Apostle. Or indeed, the possibility can hardly be excluded that all three Johannine Epistles and John’s Gospel are by the Elder. In Dodd’s tentative view, the author of the letters was “a disciple of the Evangelist and a student of his work.” He conjectures that the author was one of the presbyters of the province of Asia sometime between 96CE and 110CE.

2. Form, Destination and Purpose

No other NT letter, not even Philemon, has so complete the form of a Hellenistic private letter as II and III John. Both are real letters. But they deal with, not private matters, but matters of the faith and life of Christian communities. As statements by an ecclesiastically authoritative person, they bear a specific official stamp.

II John is addressed to a community. Kupia (1, 5) could be either a proper name or a courteous address to a woman, but based on the tone of the letter as a whole, it must be assumed that the word Kupia here has a symbolic meaning. Through the bond of love as a mutual obligation this “woman” is bound “with all who have acknowledged the truth” (1, 5); her “children,” who are many (4), are not physical but spiritual children like “the children of the elder” (III John 4). The letter concerns questions about the everyday life of the Christian community (5 f, 7 ff, 10). “The lady” is, therefore, a symbolic designation for the community by way of transferring a political verbal image to a religious community. As a religious community, she is designated “the chosen” as well as her “chosen sister” (13, cf. I Pet 5: 13), the community in the place from which the “elder” is writing. II John is intended for a specific individual congregation (4, 12 f).

Nothing is known about Gaius to whom III John is written, as with Diotrephes (9) and Demetrius (12). Gaius was converted by “the elder” (4) and is living in a community in which he and his “friends” ( 15) stand over against the officials of the community, Diotrephes ( 9f ), and his circle.

The Purpose of the two letters is different. In II John, “the elder” is issuing warnings to the community addressed concerning false teachers who refute the incarnation of Jesus Christ and preach a progressive theory. Thus the warning concerns Gnostics of some kind, like those combated in I John. They are also here equated with the Antichrist, and “the elder” commands the community not to enter into any kind of relationship with such people. The basis of the elder’s authority for issuing such instructions to the community addressed cannot be determined. In III John “the elder” praises Gaius because he has offered hospitality to the missionary brethren. He orders him to continue to do so and not to allow himself to be deterred by Diotrephes. For this Diotrephes rejects “the elder,” makes hateful speeches against him (9 f), does not permit the brethren sent by “the elder” to come into the congregation, hinders the members of the community from receiving the brethren, and excludes them from the congregation if they oppose that policy.

3. Date

II and III John are first attested by Clement of Alexandria, who, according to Eusebius, wrote commentaries on all the Catholic letters. Irenaeus quotes only II John, and the Muratorian Canon speaks of only two of the Johannine letters, which found Catholic acceptance. Since III John was translated independently into Latin, it is evident that it came into the Canon in the West later than II John. Origen and Eusebius know that the authenticity of these little letters of John is not generally recognized, and Jerome reports that II and III John were written by the presbyter John. Since II and III John were only accepted into the Canon with hesitation and probably came to be known only at a late date (indeed this is true of III John), there is scarcely a unique tradition concerning the authorship. Instead, the acceptance of both letters was hindered by the title “elder,” which could not be attached to anyone apostle. Since the tradition of the letters themselves allows us to infer nothing concerning the time of origin. Since we know nothing concerning the sequence of the writing of the letters, we can only propose that they were written about the same time as I John, i.e., ca. 90-110.

4. Contents

a. II John.

Without mention of a name, the letter is written by “the elder” to the “elect lady and her children.” In the prescript (1-3), the author stresses that the bond of love binds those who are addressed with him and with all those who have acknowledged the truth. The real content of the letter (4-11) constitutes an admonition to walk in truth and love and a warning concerning the seducers who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and who preach “progress” (9). With an expression of hope that he may soon personally be with them ( 12) and with greetings from the “children of the elect sister” of the lady addressed ( 13 ), the letter comes to a close.

b. III John

The elder writes to a person, Gaius. Following the prescript (1), there is an introductory intercession (2-4), an expression of joy over the good testimony that the itinerant brothers have brought concerning Gaius. The theme of the letter is hospitality toward itinerant brothers (5-12); Gaius is encouraged to extend his proven hospitality (5-8); polemic against Diotrephes because he has offered opposition to the author (9 f); praise of Demetrius (11 f). Conclusion (13-15): an explanation for the brevity of the writing based on his hope for a personal meeting soon (13 f); benediction and greeting (15).

Conclusion

As can be seen from the above discussion, theological development in the Fourth Gospel is evident, as greater prominence is given to the theme of Christ’s preexistence. In this respect this gospel is continuing the line of development which one can see already in the later Pauline Epistles and in Hebrews. The statement that the Logos became flesh represents a significant milestone on the road of further theological development after the New Testament era. For its pioneering of new concepts the fourth gospel is most to be valued.

Bibliography

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990.

Hagner, Donald A. The New Testament: a historical and theological introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.

Kümmel, Werner G. Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1975.

Kysar, Robert “John, The Gospel of,” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol.3, pp.912-931.

McDonald, Lee Martin and Stanley E. Porter. Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000.

Mealand, David L. “The Christology of the Fourth Gospel,” Scottish Journal of Theology 31 / 5 (October 1978): 449-467

Smith, D. Moody. John. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Edited by Victor Paul Furnish. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.

Smith,T.C. “The Christology of the Fourth Gospel,” Review and Expositor 71(Winter 1974): 19-30.

Thompson, M. M. “John Gospel of” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, (eds.) Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1992.

Footnotes